Re Gombrich :In the Intro. to the Vibhanga(Abhidhamma pitaka) (Pali text society[b]) writes "It is all very well to say 'I know what is right and what is wrong'The fact is very few people do know when it comes to the precison of mental behaviour essential to correct development toward release. It is this exactitude of behaviour;mental physical and the conseqeunces thereof, that the scriptures elucidate in detail".[i]

Iggelden carries on "

It is all very well to say 'I know what needs to be done to break the continuity of rebirth and death'. In fact very few people know of even the most elementary reasons for the continuity of process, let alone of breaking it. It is the detailed description, analysis and reasons given for this cyclic process that the scriptures spend so much care in putting before us. It is all very well to say 'What do I want to know all thesedefinitions of terms for, it only clutters the mind?'The question is, though, how many people when they seriously ask themselves as to the extent and range of some such apparently simple terms as greed, hatred and ignorance, can know their full and proper implications and manifestations within their own thoughts and actions..This the scriptures are at pains to make clear to even the dullest reader

robertk wrote:Re Gombrich :In the Intro. to the Vibhanga(Abhidhamma pitaka) (Pali text society[b]) writes "It is all very well to say 'I know what is right and what is wrong'The fact is very few people do know when it comes to the precison of mental behaviour essential to correct development toward release. It is this exactitude of behaviour;mental physical and the conseqeunces thereof, that the scriptures elucidate in detail".

Iggelden carries on "

It is all very well to say 'I know what needs to be done to break the continuity of rebirth and death'. In fact very few people know of even the most elementary reasons for the continuity of process, let alone of breaking it. It is the detailed description, analysis and reasons given for this cyclic process that the scriptures spend so much care in putting before us. It is all very well to say 'What do I want to know all thesedefinitions of terms for, it only clutters the mind?'The question is, though, how many people when they seriously ask themselves as to the extent and range of some such apparently simple terms as greed, hatred and ignorance, can know their full and proper implications and manifestations within their own thoughts and actions..This the scriptures are at pains to make clear to even the dullest reader

.

Good point. This is the strength, IMHO, of the cetasika model (It's also a deal breaker or maker for most. Right view, IMHO, at least involves believing greed, hatred and delusion are unskillful. Most people are unwilling to even acknowledge they cling to greedy, hateful, and deluded ways of doing and "being". Or, when they see it unwanted, they run away or go crazy--literally).

I think we're in more accord now, but are you saying right view alone is enough to shake those unaware of their ignorance out of their complacency?Best,Daniel

Nyanaponika Thera warns against taking analysis as establishing "parts" in Abhidhamma Studies[P71 of the PDF at http://buddhanet.net].

By arranging the mental factors in relationalgroups a subordinate synthetical element has beenintroduced into the mainly analytical Dhammasan-gani. By so doing, the danger inherent in purelyanalytical methods has been avoided. This dangerconsists in erroneously taking for genuine separateentities the “parts” resulting from analysis, insteadof restricting their use to sound practical methodwith the purpose of classifying and dissolving com-posite events wrongly conceived as ultimate uni-ties. Up to the present time it has been a regularoccurrence in the history of physics, metaphysicsand psychology that when a Whole has been suc-cessfully dissolved by analysis, the resultant “parts”themselves come again to be regarded as little“Wholes”. Early Buddhist schools succumbed tothis danger, for example, the Vaibhasikas, betterknown as Sarvàstivàdins, which belong to the so-called Hinayàna. It was these schools that, accord-ing to Otto Rosenberg (“Probleme der buddhisti-schen Philosophie”), have defined Dhammas as“substantial bearers of their specific exclusive qual-ities”. They assumed that “the substance of allthings has a permanent existence throughout thethree divisions of time, present, past and future” and that only the manifestations of these “substan-tial bearers” were impermanent and subject to changein the three divisions in time....

[Ironically, I've seen some on this Forum confuse that Savarstivadin idea with Theravada doctrine.]

Perhaps, only than that the discussion got no further than agreeing that the conditioned paramattha dhammas do not exist independently of causes and conditions... which speaks more of their arising and cessation, than it does of what it is that "really" arises and ceases in accordance with said conditions.

Nyanaponika Thera warns against taking analysis as establishing "parts" in Abhidhamma Studies[P71 of the PDF at http://buddhanet.net].

By arranging the mental factors in relationalgroups a subordinate synthetical element has beenintroduced into the mainly analytical Dhammasan-gani. By so doing, the danger inherent in purelyanalytical methods has been avoided. This dangerconsists in erroneously taking for genuine separateentities the “parts” resulting from analysis, insteadof restricting their use to sound practical methodwith the purpose of classifying and dissolving com-posite events wrongly conceived as ultimate uni-ties. Up to the present time it has been a regularoccurrence in the history of physics, metaphysicsand psychology that when a Whole has been suc-cessfully dissolved by analysis, the resultant “parts”themselves come again to be regarded as little“Wholes”. Early Buddhist schools succumbed tothis danger, for example, the Vaibhasikas, betterknown as Sarvàstivàdins, which belong to the so-called Hinayàna. It was these schools that, accord-ing to Otto Rosenberg (“Probleme der buddhisti-schen Philosophie”), have defined Dhammas as“substantial bearers of their specific exclusive qual-ities”. They assumed that “the substance of allthings has a permanent existence throughout thethree divisions of time, present, past and future” and that only the manifestations of these “substan-tial bearers” were impermanent and subject to changein the three divisions in time....

[Ironically, I've seen some on this Forum confuse that Savarstivadin idea with Theravada doctrine.]

Mike

Well, this just seems to highlight my point. These references merely elaborate on the basic ontological project.Best, Daniel

Now to give some ex.planation about the Theravada meaning of real.ities ( clasified as khandhas, ayatanas or dhatus).Firstl.ly they are extremely brief and insubstantialFrom buddhaghosa:

[note 157: Spk: 'By day and by night (rattiyaa ca divasassa ca):This is a genitive in the locative sense, i.e., during the night andduring the day. Arises as one thing and ceases as another (annadevauppajjati, anna.m nirujjhati): The meaning is that (the mind) thatarises and ceases during the day is other than (the mind) thatarises and ceases during the night. The statement should not betaken to mean that one thing arises and some thing altogetherdifferent, which had not arisen, ceases. "Day and night" is said byway of continuity, taking a continuity of lesser duration than theprevious one (i.e. the one stated for the body). But one citta isnot able to endure for a whole day or a whole night. Even in thetime of a fingersnap many hundred thousand kotis of cittas arise andcease

2. For each and every occurence of these instantaneous elements, khandhas, many conditions need to come together. And each of these conditions are equally brief and conditioned. It is actually amazing everytime we see or hear something, a little miracle, considering the brevity and the confluence of conditions needed for them to arise.

I think we're in more accord now, but are you saying right view alone is enough to shake those unaware of their ignorance out of their complacency?

Dear DanielI think its a virtuous circle. If Right view deepens at the intellectual level then In daily life, as there is the experince of the realities ( e.g. khandhas) -elucidated by the theory- the other factors of enlightenment, such as saddha, mature, and this supports wisdom to grow too. And then the study becomes even clearer, leading to deeper understanding at the experiential level, which makes the theory even clearer, leading to.....

I agree that rūpa as individual instance can arise and fall. But how can aggregate that includes different discreet things (rūpa in this case) over past, future, and present rise and fall? How can apple arise and fall? As you know, concepts don't arise and fall.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Khandhas as a word is of course a concept. However the term is referring to actual realities that did exist, or that exist now, or that will arise in the future.

Take the case of aversion. In the texts aversion is classified under sankhara khandhaThe term is a concept, but it did arise in the past for all of us. Aversion might be arising right at this moment for some of us, and will certainly arise very soon ( at least to some degree) for all of us..

robertk wrote:Khandhas as a word is of course a concept. However the term is referring to actual realities that did exist, or that exist now, or that will arise in the future.

Take the case of aversion. In the texts aversion is classified under sankhara khandhaThe term is a concept, but it did arise in the past for all of us. Aversion might be arising right at this moment for some of us, and will certainly arise very soon ( at least to some degree) for all of us..

So, dosa is of different level than saṅkhārakkhandha. Dosa as an instant can arise and cease, and then lobha can arise and cease, and then moha can arise and cease , yet with all of that, all of them (dosa, lobha, moha) are saṅkhārakkhandha.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Alex123 wrote: How can apple arise and fall? As you know, concepts don't arise and fall.

Dear alex,This is a good example, thanks for bringing it up.As you say concepts dont arise and fall( because they dont even exist).A apple, a knife , a table, a person: we look at them and yes we observe some changes. After a day or two the apples color becomes less attractive etc. the table seems to age slower than that but still over the years it loses the new look; people age even faster than the table usually.

But the texts say actual realities like the khandhas completely fall away very very quickly( see my earlier citation from SPK.)So what is happening..Well when we think about the apple we have a very vague and conceptual idea of what is seen tasted, touched and thought about. In fact what we term an apple is really biliions, trillions of kalapas. And each of these kalapas is arising for a short time and then falls away, but is replaced ,( provided there are the conditions) by new kalapas. It is this continuity which hides the radical impermanence that is truly occuring.

Everyone , buddhist or not, has some knowledge of impermanence. They know teacups break, cars get old, people age and die. But that is merely the outward sign of the much more severe impermance of the khandhas. And it Is only by understanding -dependent on study of the unique Dhamma taught by the Buddha- that the direct knowledge of impermanence can develop.Robert

robertk wrote:Khandhas as a word is of course a concept. However the term is referring to actual realities that did exist, or that exist now, or that will arise in the future.

Take the case of aversion. In the texts aversion is classified under sankhara khandhaThe term is a concept, but it did arise in the past for all of us. Aversion might be arising right at this moment for some of us, and will certainly arise very soon ( at least to some degree) for all of us..

So, dosa is of different level than saṅkhārakkhandha. Dosa as an instant can arise and cease, and then lobha can arise and cease, and then moha can arise and cease , yet with all of that, all of them (dosa, lobha, moha) are saṅkhārakkhandha.

Dear alexDosa, aversion, is a sankhara khandha. But it cant arise alone. At the same time that dosa arises also many other sankhara khandhas are arising in association with it( but some sankhara khandhas, lobha for instance, can't arise at the same time as dosa). Also other khandhas like vedana khandha and vinnana khandha are co-arising.And yes, as you say, after dosa ceases lobha may arise etc. and exactly right, all of them are classified as sankhara khandha.

robertk wrote:Well when we think about the apple we have a very vague and conceptual idea of what is seen tasted, touched and thought about. In fact what we term an apple is really biliions, trillions of kalapas. And each of these kalapas is arising for a short time and then falls away, but is replaced ,( provided there are the conditions) by new kalapas. It is this continuity which hides the radical impermanence that is truly occuring.

Is it possible that: individual kalapa* to "apple" is same as individual rūpa to rūpakkhandha?

Different individual rūpa can occur trillions of times per second, but it is still a rūpakkhandha.

*kalapas can occur trillions of times per second

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."